Rush talked about this AP article on his show today:
It's a tough economy out there, even for a kid. And many parents are wondering how to broach the subject. Should they shield their children from the hard times and spend like there's no tomorrow? Or is it better to share the reality that more families — often their own — simply can't have it all, even at Christmas? It can be a real dilemma.
What are these kids expecting for Christmas that makes this conversation even necessary?
I think the problem is that people have been spending like there's no tomorrow in the first place. Irresponsible spending, through purchasing homes people couldn't afford, is what got us into this financial mess. Continuing to spend what you don't have "for the sake of the children" will only perpetuate the crisis.
..."Eventually, they will grow up and face the same stress and challenges we all face," Hale says. "What's wrong with spoiling them now? These sweet-spirited innocent years are so fleeting."I weep for the future.
Parents who try to protect their children by spoiling them only hurt them. These children will grow up to be adults who expect to continue to be spoiled and can't cope with the stress and challenges their parents were trying to protect them from.
4 comments:
I think often people use their children as an excuse to do what they really want. It is hard to say no to yourself, but it sounds so much more nobler to "sacrifice" for the sake of your children.
My kid is getting only a few toys and the big gift was bought at a consignment shop.
I totally thought I would be one to spoil my kids, but I've since decided that I'd rather he grow up with character than with stuff.
I'm glad my family and I are past that now, and we just do charity instead of presents. Thank goodness, I can't stand Walmart.
I agree, we have never given a lot for Christmas. Spoiling them only breeds selfishness. Good post
Merry Christmas
Post a Comment